ML20197C274
| ML20197C274 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/09/1986 |
| From: | Jim Hickey GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#286-125 86-519-02-SP, 86-519-2-SP, LRP, NUDOCS 8605130286 | |
| Download: ML20197C274 (7) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. May 9, 1986 z' A5 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA N D ([ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION cc = ;n ~s ,-{ gM j@ BEFORE THE PRESIDING BOARD Docannca c '. <~ : P:nnar E
- n 4:
/ ) d '/q ' 'fPfaf ' f In the Matter of ) ) Docket No. LRP INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ) ISLAND UNIT 2 LEAK RATE ) ASLBP No. 86-519-02 SP DATA FALSIFICATION ) ) GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION'S COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED BOARD DEFINITION OF A " VALID" LEAK RATE TEST AND ON USE OF PRIOR STATEMENTS At the pre-hearing conference on April 24, 1986, the Presiding Board requested that parties file comments by May 9 concerning (1) the proposed definition by the Board as to what constitutes a " valid" leak rate test and (2) the parties' plans for use of prior statements of participants in leak rate testing. LRP Tr. 120-34, 155-57. The Board has expressed an interest in defining a " valid" leak rate test for purposes of winnowing the total number of tests down to a manageable number of questionable tests on which it could focus its attention in later phases of the proceeding. Tr. 155-57. The Board has proposed that a leak rate test be deemed " valid" for winnowing purposes if experts agree that the recorded leak rate reflects the state of unidentified leakage at TMI-2 at the time the record was made. Tr. 156. GPU Nuclear khR05130286 860509 ADOCK 05000320 G ->)
[ endorses the definition proposed by the Board as reasonable for the purpose of determining at the initial technical phase of the hearing those questionable leak rate tests on which the Board could later focus its attention. We understand the Board's definition to exclude all tests which any expert has specifically identified as potentially involving questionable practices that may have influenced the test (adding hydrogen, adding water, using suspect instrumentation, etc.) We suggest that the experts to be heard during Phase I be asked in advance by the Board to be prepared at the time they appear at the hearing to identify those tests which do not meet the Board's definition. As for use of prior statements, GPU Nuclear first notes its agreement with the Board that it would not be a practical undertaking for the Board to review all prior statements of participants in leak rate testing, as proposed by Mrs. Aamodt. Tr. 133. We agree it is a more beneficial use of the Board's time to focus on those past statements which the parties call to the Board's attention for specific purposes. At this stage, GPU Nuclear proposes that past statements be used to avoid the unnecessary appearance of witnesses. On December 31, 1985, the Board sent a letter by certified mail to approximately 120 present and former employees of GPU Nuclear and Metropolitan Edison Company "who might have been involved in or had knowledge of the reactor coolant system leak _
b \\/ rate data that are the subject of this inquiry." Memorandum and Order dated February 14, 1986, at-1. We assume all,120 are potential witnesses. We believe, however, that a number of these potential witnesses were minimally involved in'the leak ~ rate testing, or not involved at all, and that their prior statements indicate that no further investigation is necessary. These individuals were apparently included in the list of 120 potentially involved or knowledgeable individuals primarily on the basis of their job titles during the 1978-1979 time frame. GPU Nuclear thus proposes to offer for Board examination, where they exist, the prior statements of such individuals in the interest of the Board's excluding them from.further examination 'in this proceeding. In.particular, GPU Nuclear recommends that -the fifteen individuals listed on Attachment 1 be excluded from further examination, on the basis of their statements identified in Table 3 of the Stier Report. Those individuals, judging from their statements, appear to have little or nothing to contribute and, to the best of our knowledge, are not significantly mentioned or discussed in any of the statements of the other witnesses. We base this proposal on a desire to avoid unnecesary appearances of witnesses and the attendant lengthening of this proceeding, and in order appropriately to focus hearing time on important issues. While our list may not be complete at this time, we propose that the statements of the individuals listed on ! be admitted for this purpose, absent a documented i b
4 Y reason, beyond speculation, why these individuals need appear as witnesses during the hearing.1/ Finally, without having had an opportunity to review the OI and NRR reports and without the benefit of the prepared testimony of witnesses, GPU Nuclear presently cannot determine what additional prior statement it may decide to use in this proceeding. Dated: May 9, 1986 Respectfully submitted, h\\k u L Er e's t L. B)ake, Jr. J.I Patrick Rickey SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1084 Counsel for GPU Nuclear Corporation c 1/ It is GPU Nuclear's further intention in order to winnow down the list of witnesses in this proceeding to identify to the Board those individuals from the list of 120 where we believe there is no prior statement by the individual and no significant reference to the individual in any of the prior leak rate investigations. In such cases, we intend to propose to the Board a vehicle for appropriate, evidentiary disposition with regard to these individuals, which we anticipate can be achieved other than by personal appearances at the hearing. Obviously, if in the course of the proceeding, evidence suggests a different approach, including the need for personal appearance, we will recon-sider our position. a~ V ATTACHMENT 1 1. Robert Beeman 2. Jerome Boyd George Civijic / 2 3. 4. Ember Curry 5. Michael Demmy 6. Richard Dubiel 7. Dwayne Jenkins 8. Richard Kleinfelter 9. Henry Kohl 10. Randy Lightner 11. J. K. Lionarons. 12. Merrill Shaffer 13. William Wentling 14. David Wilson 15. Richard Zechman I 2/ George Civijic's name is spelled "Cvijic" in Volume III (B) of the Stier Report, Table 3 (" List of Witness State-ments").
'4 v UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE PRESIDING BOARD ) In the Matter of ) ) Docket No. LRP INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ) ISLAND UNIT 2 LEAK RATE ) ASLBP No. 86-519-02 SP DATA FALSIFICATION ) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May 9, 1986, I served the foregoing "GPU Nuclear Corporation's Comments on the Proposed Board Definition of a ' Valid' Leak Rate Test and on Use of Prior Statements" by mailing, first class, postage prepaid, a copy thereof to the following persons: Administrative Judge James L. Kelley, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Administrative Judge Glenn O. Bright Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Administrative Judge Jerry R. Kline Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Jack R. Goldberg, Esq. Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 4-I Docketing and Service Branch (3) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Harry H. Voigt, Esq. James W. Moeller, Esq. LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20036 Smith B. Gephart, Esq. Jane G. Penny, Esq. Killian & Gephart 216-218 Pine Street Box 886 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 James B. Burns, Esq. Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza Suite 5200 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Michael W. Maupin, Esq. Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 Mrs. Marjorie M. Aamodt Box 652 Lake Placid, New York 12946 and Mrs. Marjorie M. Aamodt 200 N. Church Street Parkesburg, Pennsylvania 19356 V J. ?atrick H/ckey i .. - - - - _ _ -}}